Live data from Hacker News

Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

hechingerreport.org

481–490 of 602 posts

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#481

The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status. Dropping the SAT is so obviously not a fix for that I question the competency of the administrators who thought doing so was a good idea. The SAT is probably the most attainable piece of the application process for a poor kid to succeed at. You literally just need a guide book or two and enough time to study. One good smart friend helps if…

University administrators are incompetent by default.

Perhaps a more important factor is that university administrators are being constantly bombarded with various demands, requests, accusations, and threats regarding diversity issues. By students, pundits, even accrediting organizations.

A law school dean once told to me that for years the ABA was constantly demanding, privately, that they increase the number of black students. The problem (as I saw it, we didn't discuss it much) is that this university had a reputation for being libertarian, which in the broader political climate translated (especially back then) as conservative, which translated as potentially hostile to black students. There were black students, but they deliberately chose the school for its somewhat unique curriculum which in many respects absolutely did lean libertarian. Most black students, like most students generally, wouldn't have strong enough preferences to override such a negative impression.

The woke crowd is far more vocal and fervent, and they're that way because they know that, at least in the short-term, being forceful can be effective, at least superficially. People with more reasonable sentiments and preferences, OTOH, aren't eager to put themselves in harm's way to defend those who are being targeted.

For all I know, the ABA was applying pressure because the ABA was being pressured by some other interest groups. And perhaps the ABA pulled their punches, keeping everything on the down-low, precisely because they believed the demands were less than reasonable. As the saying goes, "shit rolls down hill."

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#482
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know when all of this happened to you, but these days there's no excuse. I just googled for "how to increase my sat score" and the first result was this collegeboard.org page[1] called "How to Improve Your SAT Score." It referred me to the Khan Academy's free SAT practice course[2]. [1] https://blog.collegeboard.org/how-to-improve-your-sat-score [2] https://www.khanacademy.org/sat/confirmed

Cool so when exactly is a student supposed to spend this time to study? I really think HN should stop for a moment and think about how insidious and pervasively poverty creeps into every aspect of a poor child’s life, because some of what’s being written here is embarrassingly naïve.

Somehow poor immigrant kids in NYC find time to study.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on the Internet would someone demand a “counterargument” to support the super basic statement “your life experience wasn’t universal amongst poor people”… Fine [0][1][2][3]. Keep in mind this isn’t some “1+1=2” problem, and people have dedicated their lives to figuring this out, so if you’re looking for a “conclusion” then I don’t recommend human psychology. Let me know if you have any questions, but honestly I’…

> Only on the Internet would someone demand a “counterargument” to support the super basic statement “your life experience wasn’t universal amongst poor people”… My argument is not "Poor kids universally have time to do what they want." It's hard for me to believe you are having a good faith conversation, or even read my comments, if this is your opening line. > Fine [0][1][2][3]. Keep in mind this isn’t some “1+1=2”…

> Had you provided links that showed that kids in poverty have less time to study than their rich counterparts by some non-trivial margin, that'd be relevant, but all of your links just point out other places in poor kids lives that they are disadvantaged (less parental supervision, less childhood vocabulary, less childhood free social time, etc.), which are all definitely problems, but I fail to see where college administrators can use those to inform admissions in any meaningfully objective way.

If you can’t see how a leads to b, there are no words I can write here to convince you of anything, about anything.

I can’t make connections for you, you need to figure this out for yourself, which is why I never expected you to do anything but stick to your “let’s have an Internet argument about an obvious fact” strategy.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> High schoolers can walk around unattended. Even a quarter mile, both ways. It's not a big deal. In the summer I often try to get in 5 miles a day of running/walking. Extremely location dependent. Where I live today, in Virginia very close to DC, I commute by bike and do lots of biking/walking for fun and to run errands. What you are saying about walking around as a means of getting from place to place is just compl…

I'm sure there are places where it is difficult to walk anywhere. Those are not the norm, however. I don't recall any places like that in Seattle. Most parents with kids try to pick places to live that are reasonably kid friendly. Real estate people know that, and advertisements emphasize things like walkability and distance to schools.

Seattle is definitely out of the norm. Even Northgate, which doesn't have sidewalks in places, has roundabouts on the collectors to discourage speeding. I grew up in a poverty-level suburb and you were walking miles away on cramped sidewalks even to get to a grocery store. When I grew up cars couldn't accelerate that quickly so it wasn't that scary, but these days cars can travel at > 60 mph on collector roads between lights.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're oversimplifying the complex nature of policing. If we want peaceful, stable, societies we should model our policing systems on the places that most effectively deliver peace and stability. Two notable examples being Israel and Japan. Both places give police wide latitude to accomplish their goals and punish criminals harshly . Is Israeli policing discriminatory against Arabs? Yes. Is it effective? Also…

What if we model it after nordic countries which seems to be the complete opposite

Because the Nordic countries 1) are not at all diverse 2) are rapidly becoming conservative as they do get more diverse.

This is a tired trope.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just neo-racism and neo-sexism. It is also a weird kind of neo-feudalism, excluding outsiders that cannot or won't fit the expected mold. In the court of Versailles, you had to behave according to a certain stiff etiquette. If the same is required in institutions of higher learning, how many really creative people will be willing to put up with it?

> If the same is required in institutions of higher learning Can you give an example? At my colleges there were no rules about "stiff etiquette"

Tech companies have crazy stiff etiquette and at its worse point hr people were butting into meetings on demand and correcting behavior in real time. It was … creepy.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#487
post #460
post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given all the trash Gladwell has spouted as truth over the years, it's hard to take him seriously. Even if sometimes what he says has merit, it's hard to know when to believe him and when not to. I especially cringe at the idea that Gladwell is saying it's statistically better to do something, when he has a known history of deliberately misinterpreting data and massaging numbers to get the result he wants. While I th…

Everything you said is valid assuming the student GRADUATES which is precisely the point Gladwell is trying to make.

another point is if you are the big fish in a small pond you’ll get more attention from the teachers and gain confidence. Both can be valuable.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of issues with this argument which any administrator should immediately see the issue with. GPA: Schools weigh GPA differently. One thing I saw was that some schools with honors / AP you can get above a 4.0 to the point of a 5/4. Also GPA can be messed up when someone has a bad home life, or works a job. honors/ap/ib: These are often related to which school you go to. Poor schools have few to no AP cl…

College admissions teams don't accept the GPA from each school as-is. Instead, they look at the difficulty of each course, the school and their knowledge of the students from that school in past years. They actually use their own formulas and recalculate an internal GPA that is specific to that college admissions team. For example, they may only consider core classes and ignore electives. They may or may not count AP…

Yes, but selective colleges have relatively little experience with each school's grading distributions and are not permitted to systematically share data with each other because of antitrust/collusion concerns.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#489

The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status. Dropping the SAT is so obviously not a fix for that I question the competency of the administrators who thought doing so was a good idea. The SAT is probably the most attainable piece of the application process for a poor kid to succeed at. You literally just need a guide book or two and enough time to study. One good smart friend helps if…

Part of the argument for dropping the SAT is that the SAT has been shown to be a proxy for family socio-economic status and is no better an indicator of success at college than GPA, honor/AP/IB course participation, and extracurriculars. (I’m not making that argument myself, I haven’t seen numbers explained well enough to form a solid opinion)

> no better an indicator of success at college than GPA, honor/AP/IB course participation, and extracurriculars

It's no better than each of these, but it improves the prediction when combined with them.

But worse, those other things: GPA, AP course participation, impressive extracurriculars--- are far more receptive to being "bought" than a good SAT score. Being on a travel sports team, or having leisure / advice to do "impressive" volunteering, or having systemic tutoring support... do much more to move these other metrics than you can move SAT with any amount of prep.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status > If we are talking about the US, no, I disagree. > The greatest source of admissions inequity are shit K-12 education. You've missed the step where the higher socioeconomic classes opt-out of the shit K-12 education by moving to better school districts, sending their kids to private schools, or homeschooling them.

> You've missed the step where the higher socioeconomic classes opt-out of the shit K-12 education by moving to better school districts, sending their kids to private schools, or homeschooling them. No, I did not. I stated that our schools are garbage. If we fixed that, it really won't matter what anyone else does with their kids, public schools would be great. Put a different way: There is no justification whatsoeve…

> That implies (and requires) that bad teachers are expunged from the system like a bad infection.

Good luck with this, when the working conditions and compensation are such that staffing education at all is a massive struggle, let alone being selective.

(I do think that quality of teachers is sometimes an issue, but I think there are larger systemic issues impeding education than the quality of workers on the front line.)

> teaching methods, technology and curriculum

Teaching methods and curriculum are important. And educational research is mostly crap: well controlled studies basically don't exist.

EdTech, etc, is part of the problem. Occasionally technology is a great support to teaching, but I'm a STEM teacher who teaches the "T" without much technology at all: certainly much less than is trendy in core classrooms (like, no joke, having middle school students write out machine language programs on paper). Edtech is expensive and very often unproven snake oil that allows distractions into your classroom, but it's something administrators love to point to to show they're doing something.

Post reply on HN